Hey folks! After Augustus, we get changes in literature and in the nature of Rome’s rulers. What about changes in Roman culture? What do you think is most important about the idea of Rome to the person who wrote your reading?

The article I chose for my response is "A speech on incorporating the Gaul". I chose this article because this far in class we have spoken about Gauls here and there and I know that Rome has taken in other communities and given them the freedom to convert to be Romans but never the Gauls. In this article Claudius is essentially giving reasons as to why he believes some provincials, like Vestinus, are honorable and deserve gradual inclusion into Rome's elite ranks, while others, like Asiaticus, rose too fast and without merit, and should be excluded. He is not received kindly and someone shouts " Here now, Tiberius Caesar Germanicus! It’s time to let the Conscript Fathers understand what your talk is driving at—already you’ve reached the very limits of Narbonnese Gaul!”. Whoever shouted this is obviously not too happy with this request made by Claudius and so the response followed is a defense of the inclusion of elites from Further Gaul in the Senate by citing their proven loyalty, noble status, and prior contributions to Roman stability, arguing that fears based on past conflicts are outdated. He also takes the time to state that people from Gaul have already been integrated to Rome and the Senate has benefited from this. The second part of this article is described from Tacitus’s Account which is a bit different. According to Tacitus and if I am understanding properly his take on the speech given to the Senate is that Rome has since the beg. of time adapted by taking ideas from others. I believe the Senate is also appalled - like Rome (Italians) should be good enough and have enough numbers to fill the Senate and fulfill other things that Rome might need to keep growing.

This week i chose to write about the legal text "Law Concerning the Power of Vespasian". This text stood out to me because it confirms and acknowledges Vespasian as Rome's new emperor. During this time Rome had gone through 4 different emperors within a short period of time. Galba, Otho, and Vitellius each marched on Rome and made their claims. After the constant changes in leadership Rome needed someone who'd be a competent leader. The legion chose Vespasian to fill the role and he accepted. This text is a list of everything Vespasian receives with his new title. Basically all of the power Augustus and Ti. Julius Caesar August held is passed down to Vespasian. This felt like the Roman people solidifying Vespasian rule as emperor. As well it shows the trust that was confided in Vespasian to set things right after so much uncertainty.

For this week’s reading, I chose “The Legions Proclaim Vespasian Emperor.” This text intrigued me because it tells a compelling story about Vespasian's rise to power during a turbulent period in Roman history. It highlights how soldiers can significantly influence events by pledging their loyalty to a leader. Similarly, I found Vespasian's character particularly interesting; he remained humble and composed even after being declared emperor, which contrasts sharply with many leaders who might become arrogant in such circumstances.

The involvement of various kings and leaders who joined Vespasian's cause illustrates the importance of alliances in gaining power. A notable moment is when soldiers spontaneously declared Vespasian as Emperor while he was leaving his chamber, showing their eagerness to support him without any formal announcement. This emphasizes the crucial role of military backing in a leader's ascent to power. The author seems to convey that effective leaders, like Vespasian, stay grounded and connected to their troops rather than becoming detached or arrogant.

The reading reflects the political instability of ancient Rome during the "Year of Four Emperors" (69 CE), a chaotic time marked by multiple claimants contesting power after Emperor Nero's death. It underscores the military's vital role in determining leadership, emphasizing that emperors relied on the loyalty of their soldiers to maintain authority. Additionally, the participation of various provincial leaders showcases the empire's cultural diversity and the significance of diplomacy in forming alliances. The support for Vespasian from soldiers and local leaders highlights how public sentiment was essential for legitimizing power, revealing the complex social dynamics of the era.

Furthermore, I would like to know more about how Vespasian's reign shaped the future of the Roman Empire?

Which reading did you pick? If there’s a reason it interested you, what was it?

The reading I decided to pick was The Roman Army in the First Century CE, simply because I want to know more about how the Roman Army worked together.

What passage or detail in particular from this reading jumped out at you as you read through it? 

I was surprised by how organized the army was because, prior to me being in this class, I always believed these men to be crazy and uncontrollable. 

What do you think the author was trying to communicate?

The author was trying to describe how well organized and adaptive the Roman Army was and how they were hardworking, no matter the time. In your opinion, what is this document telling us about the time and place it comes from?

This document seems to highlight a peaceful time in Rome when soldiers were not active in war, helping out with their tools.

What about this document seems to relate to, support, or even contradict our other readings about this time and place?

I believe this reading is related and supports past readings in class, as we know the Romans are formidable and highly adaptive regarding the wars they fight. 

What would you like to find out more about?

Do children partake in everything the men do, like hard labor and such, or are they separated and do other things to help them grow into soldiers?

For this week, I chose the reading The Principle of Adoption/ Tacitus. I chose this reading because I was intrigued on learning about the process of transferring Roman power to another male who wasn’t a family member. One detail that jumped out at me or that I found interesting was when Galba justifies his choice of picking Piso as his successor, he explains that he is not looking within his family. Galba highlights Piso’s qualities and explains that he is worthy of taking on this role. He also warns Piso that being leader will become difficult because of flattery that can lead to corruption. I feel like the author was trying to communicate the political and social dynamic of how the Roman Empire worked and how these decisions affected the society. I also feel like the topic of adoption highlights the tension between tradition and change in Roman society.

I would like to learn more about other methods of choosing a successor in the Roman Empire besides adoption? What were the pros and cons?

For this week I read and did a presentation on The Legions Proclaim Vespasian Emperor from Tacitus. The reading goes on to highlight how Vespasian had set a precedent with how he was proclaimed as Emperor by his Legion, which the legion itself was not in Rome but was currently in Syria which would set the idea that you do not need to be in Rome to be proclaimed Emperor but just needed the loyalty for your legion. The part of this reading that stood out to me  "In Vespasian there appeared no sign of elation or arrogance, or of any change arising from his changed fortunes. As soon as he had dispelled the mist with which so astonishing a vicissitude had clouded his vision, he addressed the troops in a soldier-like style, and listened to the joyful intelligence that came pouring in from all quarters. This was the very opportunity for which Mucianus had been waiting. He now at once administered to the eager soldiers the oath of allegiance to Vespasian". Why this passage stood out to me as to me this felt like Tacitus was hyping up Vespasian, by framing him as a man who did not seek the position and only answered the call of his legion. The document really build up the image that Vespasian had built around himself, as the man that Rome needed to save it from the chaos that occurred after Nero's death with 3 other Emperors back to back. What I wish to know more about is before the year of the 4 emperors had any other generals tired to push for power during the reign of the Julio-Claudian Emperors?

I chose to read the text, "The Legions Proclaim Vespasian Emperor" by Tacitus due to it talking about the new era of Rome in which the loyalty of the military was now the center of importance in choosing a new principate. The part of the passage in which the soldiers proclaimed Vespasian as emperor without any formal ceremony which if there's anything we've learned about Rome is their focus on precedence and so to commit an act like this is completely different to the ideals we've seen upheld previously and shows the chaos unfolding politically in Rome. It seems Tacitus is trying to show the instability of the Empire. Once the power was given from the senate but now it is being given by the army. This tells us how Rome would never again be the same as Vespasian was made principate away from the city of Rome itself and this would repeat itself many times in the future of Rome. It as well agrees with other readings in describing the decline in traditional Roman ideals and the rise of military influence on Roman politics. The passage mentions how Mucianus was pushing hard for Vespasian to become the principate, so my question is why exactly was he so eager for Vespasian to hold power?

This week, I chose Josephus's The Roman Army in the First Century CE because, as someone interested in War, I am naturally curious to learn about combat preparation and military strategy in ancient times. Josephus states that the Roman Army in the First Century CE was disciplined and well-prepared, training hard to stay sharp for actual combat. The soldiers of the Roman army maintained strict orders and coordination; no better example than their ability to fortify and assemble a camp quickly and systematically. Camps resemble small cities, organized with walls, towers, streets, and marketplaces, and life is orderly, with signals for eating, sleeping, and marching. Josephus highlights the Roman army's efficiency and rigorous training to credit them for securing the empire. He details how the marching formations were precise, with the light-armed auxiliaries and archers leading the way to scout for ambushes, followed by the heavily armed infantry and cavalry; the general and elite troops marched in the center symbolically like an eagle. Josephus states that this discouraged rebellion and kept the empire peaceful. Josephus does a great job of praising the army's rigorous routine for Rome's dominance, and it wasn't by luck that the empire stayed that way.

This reading made me wonder how the people of Rome viewed Vespasian.